Search

Begin New Search Topic European Union Political Geography Finland

1. Identity Continuities, Far-Right Acquiescence, and the “New” and the “Old”: Finnish and Swedish NATO Accession and Neutrality

Author:
Erik Isaksson
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Austrian Institute for International Affairs (OIIP)
Abstract:
With Finland and Sweden’s accession to NATO, the number of neutral or non-aligned states in the EU has been reduced to three: Austria, Ireland, and Malta. How did Finland and Sweden’s shifts come about? What do these shifting neutrality – alliance membership constellations mean for the concept of neutrality, and for Austria’s position as a neutral state? This paper first examines the Finnish and Swedish debates pertaining to their own respective shifts, with particular attention to the far-right parties in those countries. It argues three things: first, contrary to most commentary, both the Finnish and Swedish policy shifts were underpinned by identity considerations, identities that remain largely the same under NATO membership as under non-alignment. Second, the far right’s acceptance of NATO membership has been a mix of opportunism and broadly engrained views of Russia. Third, par-ticularly in Sweden, neutrality has become seen as a thing of the past, and alliance membership as new and exciting, with possible implications for how neutrality is understood internationally. The paper then examines the state of the neutrality debate in Austria, with particular attention to the notion of neutrality as Austrian identity, the role of the FPÖ, and the potential risks for “neutral Austria” going forward. It concludes with a summary of the paper’s findings; a look at how neutrality in Austria, too, might increasingly be seen as an “old” concept; and by offering examples of how foreign policy con-cepts have been successfully reimagined in the past.
Topic:
NATO, European Union, Regional Integration, Neutrality, and Identity
Political Geography:
Europe, Finland, and Sweden

2. Foreign investments, de-risking and the EU’s green transition: Mining critical minerals in Finland

Author:
Elina Sinkkonen and Marco Siddi
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
The EU is highly dependent on imports of critical and strategic raw materials, both at the extraction and the processing stages. Many of the key supply chains for these materials are dominated by China. In addition, the EU is also dependent on China for many green technologies, such as battery production. The EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act (2023) sets concrete targets for reducing dependencies in the green transition by 2030. Considering both the level of existing dependencies in critical and strategic raw materials and the fact that the Act does not provide any new funding instruments, the feasibility of reaching the set targets is questionable. The Finnish mining sector presents an interesting case that illustrates the scarcity of domestic financing. Most metal ore mines in Finland are owned by foreign companies, and similar trends apply to the refining and recycling of materials. If the EU wishes to mitigate the risks of becoming dependent on authoritarian countries, foreign investments in sectors relevant to the green transition should be subject to investment screening. For example, the Finnish Act on the Screening of Foreign Corporate Acquisitions does not cover greenfield investments such as investments in building battery factories.
Topic:
European Union, Mining, Supply Chains, Green Transition, Raw Materials, Critical Raw Materials (CRM), and De-Risking
Political Geography:
Europe and Finland

3. New Russian Immigration to the EU: The Case of the Baltic States, Finland, Germany & Poland

Author:
Igor Gretskiy
Publication Date:
10-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Centre for Defence and Security - ICDS
Abstract:
The political atmosphere in Russia, as well as the September 2022 mobilisation call for military service, made thousands of Russians leave their home country. Although a vast majority of them have settled in post-Soviet countries, a noticeable portion has also taken up residence in EU countries. A recent couple of years have seen significant expert interest in new Russian immigration, so there is no shortage of publications on the phenomenon. However, many of these analyses suffer from substantial flaws. This report aims to provide a better understanding of new Russian immigration to the EU, as well as this group’s prevailing views on the most sensitive political issues. It concludes that the scale of emigration from Russia following the invasion of Ukraine is often overstated. It seems appropriate to distinguish between two waves of new Russian immigration to the EU. The spring wave was apparently more substantial in number and included a higher proportion of political and civil activists, academics, and IT professionals. In contrast, the autumn wave was less “politicised” as many of those leaving Russia were not necessarily opposed to Putin or his war but were primarily motivated by the fear of conscription and the prospect of being sent to the front line. After moving abroad, interest in Russia-related political activities among new Russian immigrants, even seasoned activists, tends to fade. Few remain engaged in political endeavours, instead focusing more on adapting to new realities. Their interactions with associations of Russian migrants from the previous “post-Crimean wave” are sporadic. When it comes to issues related to the politics of EU countries, new Russian immigrants often have a Russia-centric perspective on most of them. This is especially true regarding visa and travel sanctions against Russia. Immigrants remain almost impervious to the argument that for the governments of countries bordering Russia, the absolute priority is their national security and domestic public order, not the transformation of the Russian political regime at any cost. There were several quite sensitive topics that often provoked mixed feelings and even negative emotions among the respondents. The most challenging and almost taboo subject in Russian immigrant communities was donations to support the Ukrainian army. Along with Russian influencers and opposition politicians, most new Russian immigrants are reluctant to get involved in the Russia-Ukraine war, viewing it as not their concern. They largely attribute Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the Russian government and state-owned media, seeing the Russian population merely as “victims of propaganda” and absolving “average Russians” of responsibility for the war. New Russian émigrés preserve regular contacts with relatives and friends in their homeland but tend to avoid discussing politically charged topics, particularly those related to Ukraine. It appears that they have virtually no impact on the perception of the Russia-Ukraine war and the political attitudes of those who stayed in Russia, and this divide between the two groups is likely to endure. Many admitted that by staying abroad, they are losing touch with developments in Russia. Moreover, most new Russian immigrants see no future for themselves or their children in Russia and are unlikely to return there. A few might consider a temporary return if a trusted leader came to power, but generally, they prefer to live in a free, democratic Russia without taking risks or acting as change agents. Hence, when developing a strategy regarding new Russian immigrants, it is essential to primarily consider the EU’s own security considerations rather than the imagined capabilities of these immigrants. It is crucial to avoid letting the wish for significant socio-political change in Russia cloud objective analysis. In the foreseeable future, Russia will continue to pose serious security threats to Europe, while, as of now, there is no serious indication that new Russian immigration could emerge as a politically influential force back home anytime soon.
Topic:
Security, Diaspora, Immigration, Sanctions, European Union, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Ukraine, Finland, Poland, Lithuania, Germany, Estonia, Latvia, and Baltic States

4. US-EU climate change industrial policy: Pulling in different directions for cooperation, competition, and compromise

Author:
Cordelia Buchanan Ponczek
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
The United States and the European Union agree on prioritizing policies to address climate change, which includes securing supply chains for components essential to low-carbon technology. Despite this agreement, their policies to address climate change and low-carbon technology could foster competition. The US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) reflects the competitive advantage of the US to draw in the best talents, capabilities, and resources from outside sources. This leads to a disconnect between the industrial policy benefits of the IRA within the US and the potential competitive impact the IRA has on US relationships with allies. The EU’s policies are shaped by the bloc’s desire to respond to external actors—including China and Russia—while protecting the common market and building up its internal capability to ensure security of supply. This is complicated by individual member-state objectives. The 2024 US presidential election could bring change: A Republican administration might not share the EU’s outlook on climate change, the need for government intervention, or even the close transatlantic relationship seen during the Biden administration.
Topic:
Climate Change, Governance, European Union, Economic Policy, and Geoeconomics
Political Geography:
Europe, Finland, and United States of America

5. War and Energy Security: Lessons for The Future

Author:
Tomas Jermalavicius, Veli-Pekka Tynkkynen, Andrian Prokip, Christian Egenhofer, and Edoardo Righetti
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Centre for Defence and Security - ICDS
Abstract:
Russia’s war against Ukraine has produced multiple shifts in the geopolitical landscape of Europe. Various EU member states and EU institutions broke through entire decades of dogmatic principles and established practices in security and defence policies to respond to Russia’s aggression and protect the continent. The energy domain is at the forefront of this confrontation, as Russia used its dominant market position in European energy supply in the run-up to – as well as during – the war to weaken Europe’s responses, divide the EU, and deter it from increasing its support to Ukraine. The multifaceted and far-reaching impact of the war offers an opportunity for a deeper reflection on the lessons learned for energy security at the national, regional, and EU levels. It allows for an assessment of the prospects in the geopolitical landscape where Russia is comprehensively isolated; new energy and technology players grow in importance; a new global energy order emerges; and the effects of the climate crisis become more severe and evident. It is also a rare opportunity to assess how complex energy systems retain their resilience or degrade under the conditions of a high-intensity conventional war, which has collective defence implications to the ability of the frontline states, such as Estonia, to fulfil NATO’s baseline requirements for national resilience and thus Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The report seeks to provide analysis concerning these aspects of the war’s short-, medium-, and long-term impact on energy security in Europe, the Baltic region, and Estonia. Conclusions of the report stress the importance of regulatory, policy, and technological flexibility, as well as innovation, in responding to various forms of strategic coercion through the energy sector – especially when such coercion is applied against targets under the duress of a major war, in which economic disruption, market uncertainty, geopolitical turmoil, and societal anxieties are abundant. The conclusions caution though that the appetite for resilience-enhancing investments and transformative solutions might diminish in the cost-conscious economic environment of the future or that the EU and US will start a vicious cycle of protectionist measures in green energy development, which will undercut transatlantic cooperation in energy security.
Topic:
Security, NATO, Infrastructure, European Union, Gas, Crisis Management, Renewable Energy, Hybrid Threats, and Nuclear Energy
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Finland, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Sweden, and United States of America

6. An Abrupt Awaking to the Realities of a Pandemic: Learning Lessons From The Onset of COVID-19 in the EU and Finland

Author:
Mika Aaltola, Johanna Ketola, Aada Peltonen, and Karoliina Vaakanainen
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
Although their timing and nature is unexpected and disrupts normality, pandemics are not black swans, but rather an expected feature of a feverishly con- nected and globalizing world. Since the end of the Cold War, there have been several serious cases of and close calls with pandemics, including SARS in 2003, H1N1 infuenza (“swine fu”) in 2009 and Ebola in 2014. By now, we know the usual features of pandemics, how they emerge and the shape of their temporal context: rapid onset leading to a politically compelling impact followed by decreasing attention and lessening restric- tive policies resulting, in some cases, in the return of the disease. Te most serious pandemics, like the 1918 infuenza pandemic (“Spanish fu”), come in waves. Te less restrictive policies are followed by subsequent waves, partially propelled by diminishing attention and wishful policies until a cure or vaccination is found, or immunity achieved. Despite the growing awareness, pandemic diseases nevertheless often catch us of guard and bring about human misery. Te latest form of Severe Acute Res- piratory Syndrome caused by a novel coronavirus, Covid-19, which spread like wildfre around the globe in 2020, came as a surprise even though the point of origin and secrecy surrounding its emergence were similar to that of its predecessor, SARS, in 2003. In other words, pandemics continue to include “un- known” aspects, which have to do with their specifc characteristics, perhaps most notably their timing, but also other features such as infection and fatality rates, patterns of spread, and the outbreak location zone(s). Our starting point in this Working Paper is that se- rious contagious diseases are political as their cascad- ing and nonlinear efects impact people’s livelihoods and disrupt normality. Tis applies to the most recent coronavirus pandemic, as highlighted in this paper. Te key research question concerns how the European Union (EU) and its member states, illustrated through the case of Finland, became aware of the prevailing health crisis, and the kind of political ramifications that the response had, and could have had. Te focus of this paper is on the frst two and a half months of the coronavirus pandemic, from January to mid-March 2020, by which time the pandemic had replaced the prevailing agendas in the EU and in its member states and saturated the public debate, reach- ing a tipping point. Te onset entails a build-up to a clear situational policy necessity, a sentiment that drastic, exceptional actions need to be taken to con- tain or at least to slow down the pandemic outbreak, as well as a remorseful debate and fnger-pointing at actions that should have been taken sooner. Te paper studies this build-up phase while recognizing that the next phase of political reaction to a pandemic tends to include the sentiment that enough has been done or even that the actions that were taken earlier were somewhat excessive and overblown.1 Tis phase may be followed by – and is an important constituent of – yet another phase, the second wave of the pandemic. The timeframe for the Working Paper extends to mid-March 2020 when Covid-19 became the prevail- ing topic of public concern in Europe. We refer to this prevalence as the tipping point. Te term tipping point is used to identify the critical juncture, both nation- ally as well as in the EU, when sudden changes to be- haviour took place at the public and political levels. At such moments, public attention becomes heightened, single-issue focused, and rushed. Te pressure for po- litical action becomes paramount. Te mobilization of resources as well as the introduction of diferent states of emergency suddenly seem possible. Te emergent, situational requirements become the context for pol- icymaking, instead of the requirements of the then prevailing normality; namely, exceptional political acts can prevail when urgency seems to necessitate them. Te situated characteristics of a pandemic include a heightened sense of exceptionality, particularly if there is a sense that prior preparations at national, regional, and global levels were inadequate and the contingency planning insufcient. Any delays and hesitations are easily seen as weaknesses although, in normal times, they are often the keys to stable and rational political deliberation. Tis was the scenario that actualized with Covid-19, as the preparedness planning for pandem- ic security was largely perceived as defcient and the global as well as the European regional coordination in short supply.
Topic:
Security, Regional Cooperation, European Union, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Europe and Finland

7. Rule-Bending Debates in Recent Finnish EU Policy: Pacta Sunt Servanda?

Author:
Saila Heinikoski
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
The Finnish EU policy line has traditionally been adaptable and compromise-seeking, but recent examples related to the rule-bending of EU law reveal some new tendencies. Finland has stood out from the European mainstream in several cases that relate to the rule-bending of EU law in three different ways: rule-bending by others, collective rule-bending, and its own rule-bending. First, intervening in rule-bending by others has found support in Finnish EU policy. Finland prioritized the rule of law in its 2019 Council presidency, as well as in the Government Report on EU policy published on 28 January 2021. Second, alleged collective rule-bending seems to be linked to the threat of federalism. In negotiations on the recovery and resilience facility in 2020, there was a wide domestic debate on whether the result was consistent with the traditional interpretation of EU treaties. Third, Finland’s own rule-bending of the Schengen Border Code’s six-month limit for internal border controls during the Covid-19 crisis seems to have been quietly accepted, with the Interior Minister acknowledging the existence of an “illegal state of affairs”.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, Treaties and Agreements, European Union, Rule of Law, Regionalism, and Federalism
Political Geography:
Europe and Finland

8. Possibilities for Epistemic Violence in Asylum Process: Lessons From the Case of Finland

Author:
Katri Gadd and Laura Lehtikunnas
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Rest: Journal of Politics and Development
Institution:
Centre for Strategic Research and Analysis (CESRAN)
Abstract:
In 2015, Europe noticed that the Common European Asylum System malfunctions in “crises”-like-situations. With the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, the European Union (EU) tries to ensure an efficient and humane migration management. Migration being a highly polarising issue, fuelled by populist rhetoric, migration policies must be founded on scientifically discovered implications of the policies. Here, we evaluate the Finnish asylum process through analysing the legislation, legal practice and 70 former asylum seekers’ experiences. We merge these viewpoints through the concept of epistemic violence understood as failures in linguistic exchanges harming the speaker. We examine whether the legal amendments in Finland, increased the possibilities for epistemic violence in the asylum process. At worst, epistemic violence results wrongly motivated decisions in asylum cases. Based on the case of Finland, this paper argues that more research is needed in times of efficiency pressure regarding asylum processes and overall contestation related to the legitimacy of the EU migration policies.
Topic:
Migration, Regional Cooperation, European Union, Violence, and Asylum
Political Geography:
Europe and Finland

9. Exploring avenues in the EU’s rule of law crisis: What role for the Netherlands?

Author:
Luuk Molthof, Nienke van Heukelingen, and Giulia Cretti
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
Despite the existence of an extensive ‘rule of law toolbox’, the EU has found it difficult to deal with rule of law issues. Many experts attribute the EU’s failure to act to a lack of political will and determination on the part of EU institutions and member states. However, not all actors are lacking in political will (equally). The Netherlands, for instance, has been very concerned about the erosion of the rule of law inside the EU and has been one of the more active member states – along with, for instance, Belgium, Finland, Sweden and Denmark – in trying to address the EU’s rule of law crisis. In this policy brief, we examine three possible avenues available to the Netherlands to strengthen the political will of EU institutions and (like-minded) peers to assertively address this crisis and to increase pressure on backsliding member states to safeguard the rule of law.
Topic:
European Union, Democracy, Rule of Law, and Institutions
Political Geography:
Europe, Finland, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, and Netherlands

10. Covid-19 bends the rules on internal border controls: Yet another crisis undermining the Schengen acquis?

Author:
Saila Heinikoski
Publication Date:
04-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
Free movement within the Schengen Area has been challenged in recent years by national measures: from internal border checks after the ‘migration crisis’ to the closure of borders in the Covid-19 crisis. This is the first time in the history of Schengen that member states have categorically refused entry to other EU citizens who are not registered residents or cross-border workers. Seventeen Schengen countries have submitted a notification on reintroducing internal border control due to Covid-19: Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland. The use of Schengen provisions was creative: 12 states justified their internal border controls as a case requiring immediate action (Art. 28), France and Denmark expanded their already existing internal border controls (Art. 25), Finland appealed to the ‘foreseeable event’ clause (Art. 25), and Slovakia and Poland introduced ‘healthcare-police measures’ (Art. 23) before launching border controls (Art. 28). The crisis illustrates the need to reform Schengen in order to maintain the legitimacy of commonly agreed rules.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, European Union, Public Health, Schengen, Pandemic, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Europe, Finland, Norway, France, Poland, Lithuania, Germany, Estonia, Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, Spain, Switzerland, Portugal, Iceland, Austria, Czech Republic, and Slovakia